Thank you for sharing. I actually put my hand over the computer screen so I wouldn't have to look at the images. Low-tech but it works!

I agree that the idea of "meat animals" vs. "non-meat animals" is bizarre. I think there would still be an uproar if it had been an "acceptable animal meat" that was being mislabeled though, pork for example, since people will abstain from eating certain meats for religious reasons or whatever.

I was trying to think what meat could be mixed with beef and people wouldn't be upset, I'm think bison maybe? A lot of people think of it as healthier than beef and it is often sold next to beef in a store. I personally could never eat bison (when I ate meat) but people would probably be like 'eh, whatever' if it happened.

_________________You are all a disgrace to vegans. Go f*ck yourselves, especially linanil.

I purposely didn't mention pork when I asked whether people would be upset finding out another "meat animal" was mixed with beef, because I do recognize the (very valid) religious implications of pork being unlabeled in food. I specifically mentioned turkey because ground turkey is often used as a healthier replacement to beef.

I agree that people would probably be somewhat less upset about hidden turkey as a specific example, but if it's OK to be upset about hidden pork on a religious basis then why isn't it OK to be upset about hidden horse meat? Horse meat isn't kosher so in this particular case it goes beyond the "I wasn't aware of what I was eating" disgust.

What about allergies? What if it was shrimp in there an people didn't know? Some people are allergic to chicken too. Would people make more of big deal out of it if someone had an allergic reaction to their beef burger because it contained meats that they were allergic to?

Well yes, allergies are obviously a problem too. I think we all can agree that it's weird when people get upset just because the meat didn't come from a "meat animal" and that our food should be labelled correctly. To me it just seems like a flawed argument to say that people wouldn't get as upset if it had been another "acceptable" meat, whether or not it had religious implications, because there are a wide variety of reasons that's not true, and that's not really the point in any case. Plus there is a strong history of horse being taboo in certain religious sects, so using the logic that turkey would be OK because it's a more commonly consumed meat doesn't really make sense because there are reasons why eating horse has an extra-negative connotation. I certainly don't believe that some lives are worth more than others, nor do I eat any meat, but I can understand why some people would get upset about horse meat as opposed to other meats.

"The silver lining to this story is that, despite the shortfall in bringing dietary thoughts and morals full-circle, there is discussion happening about the unethical treatment and murder of (some) animals." <--- To me, that seems like the main point of the story and I agree.

I agree that is a flawed argument that people wouldn't get as upset if it was another 'acceptable' animal. I think the only case that would be true is if there was some benefit like it was lower fat or looked at as 'healthier' but even then, I wouldn't be surprised at people getting upset. They were upset at oats, if you get upset at oats, you aren't elevating oats to a higher level than a cow.

And you are right, now maybe some people will look at the ethics of murdering horses but I somehow doubt it. I mean, I remember cartoons when I was a kid joking about horses being turned into glue and those were cartoons. Basically, when you race horses and those horses are no longer useful, something generally happens to them and its generally not good except in the cases where rescues step in.

_________________You are all a disgrace to vegans. Go f*ck yourselves, especially linanil.

Ok I know that like no one's ever heard of any being allergic to horse meat, but I just meant that if someone had an allergic reaction to something in their food, which could have been avoided with simple labeling, maybe people would be more upset. Or not.

Watch someone shows up who actually is allergic to horse meat.

But all meat issues aside, people I've talked to in the non internet universe, some seem to not care about labels, to the point where they are perfectly happy to give up their own, and everyone else's consumer rights, because they don't care or don't want to know, and think that the cost of their food would go up or be less if nothing had to have labels Which I totally don't get. It's one thing if you don't care to read a label for yourself, but to say that you don't support labeling what's in food in general???? Like how many terrible junk food ads and Fox news did you have to watch to get the point where you support corporations not disclosing what's in their products because it may save a 0.000000001 of a cent?

I agree that is a flawed argument that people wouldn't get as upset if it was another 'acceptable' animal. I think the only case that would be true is if there was some benefit like it was lower fat or looked at as 'healthier' but even then, I wouldn't be surprised at people getting upset. They were upset at oats, if you get upset at oats, you aren't elevating oats to a higher level than a cow.

I haven't heard of any media upset over oats over here in Scotland, but I'm willing to be proved wrong if anyone has a link. I've not even heard of any comparable media attention being given to the fact that pig's meat was found in some samples; it's all been about the horse's meat.

_________________Some woopiter from Jupiter then says, and I quote: "That can't be true because I read otherwise online. Just look on Youtube." - torque

Haha I know, I was just joking around. I do agree that accidental ANYTHING in food is a potentially huge problem because there are tons of people who are allergic to other animal products like shrimp, eggs etc.

I really don't understand how anyone could be in favor of the idea of companies not labelling their food, but I guess I don't understand a lot of things about what people think.

I've never heard of anyone feeling scandalized over hidden oats (though that could be problem from an allergy perspective), but there was that whole thing not too long ago here in America about high soy contents in fast food food meals. People were really, really upset!

Edit: I just looked farther up in the thread and apparently the whole Taco Bell scandal was actually about secret oats and corn? Maybe it was a different restaurant with the soy scandal. I don't know. In any case, OAT SCANDAL.

Haha I know, I was just joking around. I do agree that accidental ANYTHING in food is a potentially huge problem because there are tons of people who are allergic to other animal products like shrimp, eggs etc.

I really don't understand how anyone could be in favor of the idea of companies not labelling their food, but I guess I don't understand a lot of things about what people think.

I've never heard of anyone feeling scandalized over hidden oats (though that could be problem from an allergy perspective), but there was that whole thing not too long ago here in America about high soy contents in fast food food meals. People were really, really upset!

Edit: I just looked farther up in the thread and apparently the whole Taco Bell scandal was actually about secret oats and corn? Maybe it was a different restaurant with the soy scandal. I don't know. In any case, OAT SCANDAL.

I know, I'm still waiting for the one person who is allergic to horse meat to show up though! You technically be allergic to anything, so it's possible.I think I would, and well do, get somewhat upset over finding out anything that I buy isn't exactly what it's supposed to be. I want to know exactly what I'm buying and I hate the idea of things being not disclosed, or made out to be something they aren't. I may also read too much Ralph Nader. But damnit I really value these consumer rights I have and I don't get how other people don't.

Yeah I thought it was a soy scandal but I wonder if the soy scandal was actually with food provided in schools? But people were really really upset about taco bell when it was revealed it wasn't 100% meat.

_________________You are all a disgrace to vegans. Go f*ck yourselves, especially linanil.

I've not even heard of any comparable media attention being given to the fact that pig's meat was found in some samples; it's all been about the horse's meat.

I think if it had just been pig meat people would still be really upset and it would still be all over the news, but in this case the horse meat is being played up in the media because it's more unusual and shocking.

I've not even heard of any comparable media attention being given to the fact that pig's meat was found in some samples; it's all been about the horse's meat.

I think if it had just been pig meat people would still be really upset and it would still be all over the news, but in this case the horse meat is being played up in the media because it's more unusual and shocking.

I don't think it would have run for so long; I've not heard anywhere still talking about pig's meat. When the supermarkets have been taking out full page ads in the broadsheet newspapers, it's only been apologising for horsemeat, not for any other mislabelling.

On a tangent, I went into a Co-op supermarket today and wasn't sure whether to be happy or sad that the 'cut price' section was full of cow's meat; clearly sales have been down, but does this mean people are avoiding meat or just switching which animal they choose to eat? I don't know, but either way I feel kind of sad about the whole thing, even though it's interesting to have some serious discussion of animal slaughter and farming in the news for once.

_________________Some woopiter from Jupiter then says, and I quote: "That can't be true because I read otherwise online. Just look on Youtube." - torque

On Brian Lehrer this morning, a journalist was giving an update on the scandal and they were taking calls responding to the question of "where do you draw the line in eating?" They wanted to hear about people who would eat bugs, but not dogs, etc. So somebody calls in and says they think it's all about "personality." It's not okay to eat an animal with a personality - horses, dogs, etc. The caller hung up and then the journalist was like, uh, well, pigs have a ton of personality, didn't you see the movie "Babe"? So maybe you wouldn't eat Babe in particular, but we eat tons and tons of other pigs who have personalities. It was kind of awesome and not at all in line with NPR's usual dismissal of farmed animals.

On Brian Lehrer this morning, a journalist was giving an update on the scandal and they were taking calls responding to the question of "where do you draw the line in eating?" They wanted to hear about people who would eat bugs, but not dogs, etc. So somebody calls in and says they think it's all about "personality." It's not okay to eat an animal with a personality - horses, dogs, etc. The caller hung up and then the journalist was like, uh, well, pigs have a ton of personality, didn't you see the movie "Babe"? So maybe you wouldn't eat Babe in particular, but we eat tons and tons of other pigs who have personalities. It was kind of awesome and not at all in line with NPR's usual dismissal of farmed animals.

i can only hope that Samuel Jackson called in and reminded everyone that "personality goes a long way".

I think it's awesome it's bringing attention to the cruelty of animal slaughter, even if it's maybe limited to one species.

But it's totally irking me that the entire media has totally glossed over the fact that this was possible because of deregulation of the companies that provide the "beef". No where in the discussion of the "scandal" that I have seen, has the words "corporate accountability" been mentioned. Because while we can discuss forever what people feel comfortable eating, it is, unfortunately, not the real issue. leave it to mainstream media to not figure that one out.It's like vegan in me is cheering, and the political activist is weeping.